And i said he was not? he said that as he was returning from Munich expecting an hostile reception. He just didn't had any illusions, neither about his own country.

Warspite1

No you didn't, it's just your initial attack on the democracies - and now the "clueless Chamberlain" stuff - that irritates.

But no point flogging a dead horse - I've made my point and so have you. Guess we'll agree to disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Warspite,

I think the above posted by Nikademus is as relevant to this thread as it was in the 'Ships that never Sailed' thread. I can't read the threads of one of the protagonists of this thread as I came up against the same problem and had to employ the green button, after having some outrageous insinuations written.

There is no sense of humour and no reasoning with this protagonist.

< Message edited by Empire101 -- 10/1/2012 9:59:27 AM >

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.- Michael Burleigh

This debate is interesting but endless, for my part I would just like to add a couple of pointers :

- Lots of criticism of France and UK in the 35+ years while Germany was rearming and seting its aggressive agenda. I would just like to point that those two democracies were facing 2 monstruous challenges at the times : deal with the collective trauma and inheritence of WWI, ie people saying "never again", and dealing with a MASSIVE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS (that had really hit France in 1932-33). You had governements that simply couldn't have forced a different course of action upon their countries. Like in many crisis, the democratic governements were trying to gain some time to convince their people of what had to be done, ie rearm, etc... They needed that time. History has been collectivelly harsh on those two democracies, but we have to remember that as democracies dreadging those 2 massive weights (WWI and Eco crisis) they were severely harmstrung. One could say that for democracies to adapt they need those symbolic schocks, ie Munich helped convince the constituents that the problem couldn't be ignored anymore.

- A major aspect of the closing stages of WWI is that war was never waged on the austro-german core provinces. Psychologically this played a major role in the "stab in the back" mantra, ie defeat was never consumated. And this analysis is correct, 11t November isn't a surrender, it is an agreement to stop the fight. Lots of french generals considered that it was a terrible, terrible mistake not to militarilly conquer Germany and only accept unconditionnal and total surrender. I am not justifying this analysis or saying this is the one and only truth, but it is an important aspect, howa can a harsh peace treaty like Versailles be credible if the countries that have had to submit to eat feel they hadn't lost ? After all Germany beat Russia and was not invaded by the western allies. In the different context of WWII this is an important lesson learned by the allies : no armistice, only unconditionnal surrender and full occupation of the defeated. You cannot expect a population to come to terms with a defeat if they just suddenly learn about it in the papers and boom it is done, suddenly in some cities allied soldiers are there walking around like it is a sunday stroll... Had the Germans seen the allied soldiers take their cities and march on the main streets, the perception of the "veracity" of the defeat at least would have been different.

Just two small points I wanted to make (the first being more significant).

I believe Europeans have a fundamentally different geo-political outlook than Americans. In a nutshell, Americans have no real issues with their neighbors; they don't covet regions of other countries.

A few years back I spent some time in Budapest. In the national museum, there is a huge wall map of Hungary - this map includes regions such as Transylvania and Croatia - territories they ceded at the end of WW I.

Hungarians still believe these areas are rightfully theirs. As a consequence, they really dislike Romania (owns Transylvania!); they cannot stand Croatia (that's Hungarian land, not an independent country!); and they're really annoyed with the Czech Republic over some piece of land (Upper Hungary, maybe?); and of course they hate the Austrians, who essentially held Hungary in vassalage for some hundreds of year; and don't even think about the Russians (i.e. Soviets).

Essentially, they have issues with all their neighbors. Consider, for a moment, the other countries of Europe - many, if not most also have issues over some past land realignment or problems about ethnic minorities. What a powder keg, waiting for a spark to set it off.

Not take somebody like Hitler, and drop him into this witch's brew. There's the spark, and boom!

That trip to Hungary was definitely an eye-opener in international relations to me.

Ordinary people don't think that way any more... if you ask, for example, ordinary citizen of Hungary and Croatia if there is some huge rivalry still existing they would deny it...

Also, please note that Croatia was never "Hungarian land" and that Hungarians never settled Croatia or were majority there. Croatia was kingdom under Hungarian kings (but with Croatian with viceroy and Croatian parliament for centuries) only because when last true Croatian king died without children in late 11th century Hungarian kings claimed the Croatian throne because the last king's wife was Hungarian born princess (their son died as a child so there was no Croatian king of Hungarian blood)...

I think the above posted by Nikademus is as relevant to this thread as it was in the 'Ships that never Sailed' thread. I can't read the threads of one of the protagonists of this thread as I came up against the same problem and had to employ the green button, after having some outrageous insinuations written.

There is no sense of humour and no reasoning with this protagonist.

best course of action. Had a similar problem in the RN/USN carrier ops thread by same protagonist. Why i rarely engage him. Either GB, or i just say "Whatever you say dude"

No you didn't, it's just your initial attack on the democracies - and now the "clueless Chamberlain" stuff - that irritates.

I attack democracies insofar as they allowed dictatorships a free ride for almost a decade while having material and manpower superiority. It is in context of appeasement and worse even not trying to be competent appeasers, getting a strong hand for appeasing negotiations against dictatorships that i attack them. And don't get me even started at end of war with half Europe under Stalin. Just reading the stories of the prisoners and specially civilians sent by US forces to Soviet gulag is enough to make blood boil. Only some stiff resolve appeared later with Berlin air bridge, but from some opinions here the fall of Berlin letting it starve also would be completely understandable...

quote:

I would just like to point that those two democracies were facing 2 monstruous challenges at the times : deal with the collective trauma and inheritence of WWI

The issue was true for democracies and dictatorships, any of them had hundred thousands/million of deaths in WW1. The second part is a good point.

ORIGINAL: Dili I attack democracies insofar as they allowed dictatorships a free ride for almost a decade while having material and manpower superiority.

Hindsight is a stern judge, Dili. Those democratic governments did their job, insofar they did as their people wanted. And those people, who had been to war, won it at a very high price (go and see the monuments of WWI in any small european village : ten house and fifteen names...), and saw that this great war to end all wars only led to another war, just wanted, very logically, to avoid it.

I believe many French and English people believed the Germans thought the same. They had been there WWI too. To some extent, what western democracies did not fully realize was the "total" nature of modern dictatures.

Again, it is almost impossible for us, having grown in a relatively peaceful world, where war happens abroad, far away, and takes tens of thousands, instead of millions, to put ourselves in their shoes.

quote:

And don't get me even started at end of war with half Europe under Stalin.

Hindsight is easy and yes Dili all of us get insenced and really suffer when we read about all the atrocities committed... But a democracy cannot force a course of action upon its people. Clever democratic governments can trick and manipulate to some extent, and they all do it, but Blum or Daladier au Chautemps did what they could.. You could say they may not have been the best equipped men to do it and shrewder or more efficient leaders might have done a bette job, but in the end they did what they could...

ORIGINAL: castor troy As it stands nowadays, I can assure you, nations in Europe that pretty much all are part of the EU don't have real issues with each other, probably not worse than states of the US would have with each other.

I can assure you sir, that for one Kansas and Missouri are still fighting the Civil War. It's gotten so bad that Missouri has seceded from the Union (nowadays called "The Big Twelve") and officially joined the Confederacy (nowadays called "The SEC", - spelled out South Eastern Conference).

For you non US, this is a reference to American college football, mind you not what we call soccer, rather our game where the objective is to see how many concussions you can absorb before you can no longer walk without assistance.

Also for you non-US, don't be confused, the only reason Missouri didn't join the Confederacy in the 1860's is because those devil Yanks wisely occupied her at the start.

They can keep em... Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado look greeeeeeeat in their new conferences.. love it... Go KSU!